CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sA79D7CC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9C40A127 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9078A711 { width:11.18pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s40F4C625 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s46945B1C { width:7.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF46D03BC { width:4.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90114CF2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6F863F49 { width:6.51pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB92302FC { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD91B6282 { width:117.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s73EBE0AB { width:0.95pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF OOO KULTURNYYE PROYEKTY v. RUSSIA (Application no. 602/24)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 30 April 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of OOO Kulturnyye proyekty v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President ,   Mateja Đurović,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 December 2023. 2.     The applicant company was represented by Ms A. Tyunyayeva, a lawyer practising in Korolev. 3.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant company’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicant company complained of the State’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to safeguard the exercise of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. It also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW         Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023).      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention 7 .     The applicant company complained of the State’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to safeguard the exercise of the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression. It relied on Article   10 of the Convention. 8.     In the leading case of Side by Side International Film Festival and Others v. Russia , nos.   32678/18 and 2 others, §§ 13-21, 17   December 2024, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the State has failed to discharge its obligations under Article   10 of the Convention by securing the safe and uninterrupted conduct of the international LGBT film festival organised by the applicant company. 10.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   10 of the Convention.    OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11 .     The applicant company submitted a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 10, in respect of the refusal to include its film festival in the list of approved festivals, which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos. 67667/09 and 2 others, §§ 90-92, 20 June 2017.    Remaining complaints 12.     The applicant company raised further additional complaints under Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In view of the findings in paragraphs 7-11 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Side by Side International Film Festival and Others, cited above, § 25), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant company 7,500 euros (EUR). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUS LY,      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to the facts that took place before 16   September 2022;      Declares the complaints under Article   10 of the Convention   in respect of the State’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to secure the safe and uninterrupted conduct of the international LGBT film festival organised by the applicant company, and under Article   14 in conjunction with Article 10 in respect of the refusal to include the applicant company’s film festival in the list of approved festivals admissible and   holds   that it is not necessary to examine the remaining complaints under Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention;      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the State’s failure to comply with its positive obligation;      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);      Holds   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months, EUR 7,500 (seven thousand and five hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 April 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention (various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of registration   Representative’s name and location Summary of facts Final decision Date Name of the court Legal issues Relevant case-law Other complaints under well-established case-law 602/24 05/12/2023 OOO KULTURNYYE PROYEKTY 2022   Tyunyayeva Anastasiya Ivanovna Korolev The applicant company is the organiser of an annual Side by Side International LGBT film festival in Russia. On 25 May 2019 the screening of the films was interrupted after the police received telephone calls about a bomb planted on the premises. The applicant company asked the police to investigate the false bomb threat. The police opened a criminal case which was first suspended as the perpetrator could not be identified and then discontinued as time-barred. 16 October 2023, the Investigative Committee of the Tverskoy District of Moscow. The failure by the State to discharge its obligations under Article 10 of the Convention by securing the safe and uninterrupted conduct of the international LGBT film festival organised by the applicant company Side by Side International Film Festival and Others v. Russia, nos. 32678/18 and 2 others, §§ 13-21, 17 December 2024 Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – On 16 December 2021 the Ministry of Culture refused the applicant company’s request to have its LGBT film festival included in the list of approved film festivals for year 2022, relying on the law prohibiting promotion of homosexuality among minors. The film festival had been before included in that list in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Inclusion in the list granted an exemption from obtaining film reproduction licences for the films screened during the festival. The applicant company’s judicial review complaint was rejected, as the courts found that it had previously promoted homosexuality among minors (final decision of 7 August 2023 by the Supreme Court) (see Bayev and Others v. Russia , nos. 67667/09 and 2 others, §§ 90-92, 20 June 2017): Complaint about the refusal of the applicant company’s request to have its LGBT film festival included in the list of approved film festivals for year 2022 (see Klimova and Others v. Russia, nos. 33421/16 and 6 others, 4 February 2025)